RAPS.org needs your explicit consent to store browser cookies. If you don't allow cookies, you may not be able to use certain features of the web site such as personalized content. Please see our Privacy Policy for more information.

The site navigation utilizes arrow, enter, escape, and space bar key commands. Left and right arrows move
across top level links and expand / close menus in sub levels. Up and Down arrows will open main level
menus and toggle through sub tier links. Enter and space open menus and escape closes them as well. Tab
will move on to the next part of the site rather than go through menu items.

About the Regulatory Profession

The regulatory function is vital in making safe and effective healthcare products available worldwide. Individuals who ensure regulatory compliance and prepare submissions, as well as those whose main job function is clinical affairs or quality assurance are all considered regulatory professionals.

Regulatory Code of Ethics

One of our most valuable contributions to the profession is the Regulatory Code of Ethics. The Code of Ethics provides regulatory professionals with core values that hold them to the highest standards of professional conduct.

Regulatory Competency Framework

Like all professions, regulatory is based on a shared set of competencies. The Regulatory Competency Framework describes the essential elements of what is required of regulatory professionals at four major career and professional levels.

Regulatory Convergence

Join the brightest minds in regulatory at the annual Regulatory Convergence. See the global regulatory community in action. Intensive workshops. Topical sessions. Meet ups with regulators. This is where it all comes together.

Industry groups and biopharma companies are seeking additional clarity from the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) regarding draft guidance released in August on chemistry, manufacturing and controls (CMC) postapproval changes for biologics to be documented in annual reports.

The draft guidance notes that under FDA regulations, postapproval changes in the product, production process, quality controls, equipment, facilities or responsible personnel that have a minimal potential to have an adverse effect on product quality must be documented by biologic applicants in an annual report.

But drugmakers are seeking additional clarity, questioning whether this guidance will take precedence over previous guidance and wondering how it will align with a final ICH guideline on technical and regulatory considerations for product lifecycle management, known as Q12.

Industry group BIO, for instance, says it would be helpful for FDA to define when the potential for an adverse effect is determined.

“Is it the potential at the first thought of the change, after a risk assessment, after generating some data, after validation, or at time of implementation? This is important because as the change is analyzed and data are generated generally the potential for adversely affecting the product decreases,” BIO adds.

And in terms of alignment with Q12, “BIO notes that continuity and consistency of terms across various guidances and guidelines will be necessary to ensure clarity and consistency in expectations for both Sponsors and Regulatory Authorities.”

GlaxoSmithKline, meanwhile, says that the current draft does not include all instances of annual reportable changes as noted in previous guidance from 1997.

“With the interest to simplify and minimize confusion, it is recommended the Agency have a single guidance to refer to for categorization of post approval changes and incorporate the current guidance content into the original 1997 guidance,” GSK says.

Similarly, Pfizer says there “may be conflicts between this draft guidance document and other guidance documents,” noting that it’s difficult to determine which guidance takes precedence.

The Association for Accessible Medicines also seeks more specificity on changes to manufacturing sites and “particularly those which are a key part of the sterilization process for a biologic process, i.e., moving the vial thaw equipment to another building within the same manufacturing site.”